And the Oscar goes to…

The 2007 winner of the Brid Rodgers’ sponsored Most Over-Hyped Election Candidate must surely go to her unfortunate party colleague, Sharon Haughey. Haughey had been widely tipped by commentators as providing the SDLP’s best chance at taking a seat back from Sinn Fein in this election, and even up to the morning of the count SDLP ‘insiders’ were briefing the media that she looked good for the seat.
In the end, she was well out of the reckoning. But who were the other big disappointments in this election? Over to you, Sluggerites.

  • Roisin

    Multiple ID – Same Personality Person

    [i]So what does your woeful and pitiful attempt at ad hominem prove? You’re sounding way too bitter and twisted. [b]Take your own advice and like you condescendingly told me “Take a chill pill”,[/b] go watch the rugby , sit up and rest for a while eh? You could take time to contemplate why someone would think to malign someone’s good name is worth all the effort… Or are you one of those people with all the answers? You arrogance suggests that believe you have everything sussed… I did tell you that that your arrogance is wasted on me. Is it easier for you to pretend that I really DO give a shit about what you think of me? Oh Roisn, don’t think bad of me! Please! I won’t be able to sleep at nights!
    [b]Posted by Padraig on Mar 11, 2007 @ 04:15 PM[/b][/i]

    Well, no, actually, as a matter of fact. It was Dougal I told to take a chill pill.

    [i][b]”Take a chill pill, Dougal.[/b]

    The SDLP over-hyped Haughey’s election chances, and if she’s been embarrassed by that she might want to look at her own party and ask them why they used her in such a blatant sexist manner.
    [b]Posted by Roisin on Mar 11, 2007 @ 01:12 AM”[/b][/i]

    Still, eh? Not to worry, the nice lady with the pill trolley will be along soon I’m sure.

    Do you think the Sherlock Holmes Fan Club might let me back in?


  • Dr H Lecter

    Does someone here need therapy? I’d only be too happy to assist. Multiple personality disorder?

    I’m your man….

  • SuperSoupy

    Here’s the link to the over-hyping SDLP blog advising people to bet on Haughey:

  • Colette

    Hi D’
    It’s me!

    Poddy gone home then? I see roisins still gunning for you!

    I’m still with you on this one. Can I join the SH fan club?

  • Henry94

    I wonder if the SDLP have any tips for Cheltenham. It would be nice for the “betting types” to know what horses to avoid.


    I agree about the respect due to anyone who runs for election. I wouldn’t dream of making any kind of attack on Sharon Haughey no more than I would on Brid Rodgers who I have a great deal of respect for.

    This is about the politics of it and the use of hype. We are nearly all agreed (on a one man one vote basis) that there was hype and that it didn’t help the candidate.

    The real victims of the hype were the posters who came on here and proclaimed a victory on the basis of it. They are the ones who look foolish. Not Ms Haughey.

    I honestly believe that if I made such strident predictions about a result and was proved wrong that I’d be happy to turn up and eat humble pie and take the good-natured mockery that goes with it.

  • Dougal


    So a “Vote SDLP” promotional website quoted an article by a sympathetic reporter who had the audacity to suggest that “SF’s third candidate might be vulnerable to rising SDLP star Sharon Haughey”! Well that just about nails it then doesn’t it? Clearly any promotion by any party is just “hype”. What a load of shite! Shall we allow all forms of “spin” and “hype!”no matter how untrue they are, or should we just rule all out all forms of “promotion”? Should we all just ignore “lies” anyone might say about us? Of course not.

    Some people need to learn that parties are allowed to promote their candidates but it’s not all “hype”. Given what was happening in Newry prior to the election, it was not unreasonable for the SDLP to suggest that SF was vulnerable. This is backed up by the fact that 10% of the vote in N&A believed Sharon Haughey best represented their views. But more significantly, there is NO evidence of an attempt to deceive, mislead or make grandiose claims. That why Chris Donnelly is wrong and that’s why the premise of this thread is wrong.

  • Rubicon

    Dougal – myself and a number of others put money on Sharon. Do you think this “vote SDLP” promotional website will honour the bets? Or, were we misled?

  • SuperSoupy

    Advising people to bet on a candidate goes beyond promotion. It is hype. Selling a possibility as a certainty and get it embarassingly wrong.

    Let’s hope no one lost cash as a result of the SDLP’s over-hyping.

  • Rubicon

    SS – Here’s one mug and I know plenty more 😉

  • Rubicon

    I also bet on Paul Berry (seemed too good @ 10/1) and the largest party handicap that had SDLP +17.5 at 5/2.

    Fancy a tip for Cheltenham? 😉

  • Rubicon

    The reality of party hype is that it’s a case of caveat emptor. It’s still hype.

  • napster

    I had a nice quad up


  • Dougal

    Hype is not the same party promotion. End of.

    Because you are happy to ignore the dictionary definition of the word “hype”, it does mean your argument ois nany the stronget for it. To keep harping on this way, makes you sound desperate.

    Oh yeah…a fool and his money and all that…

  • Dougal

    Advising people to bet on a candidate goes beyond promotion..


  • Rubicon

    The reality of party hype is that it’s a case of caveat emptor. It’s still hype.

    Thank you for that Dougal. I shall certainly keep that in mind when I hear future hype from the SDLP.

    In terms of the dictionary definition you used the SDLP is guilty of hype since it misled people by advising them to bet on Haughey.

    Your response to this? To call them fools – and you with that approach you wonder why the SDLP is loosing votes?.

    Reading your sophistry here has been most entertaining and made the bet worthwhile. If your objective is to defend/promote the SDLP you’re doing a very bad job of it.

    Napster – nice win! 3 of the 4 must have been odds on but I didn’t think Purvis was going to make it.

  • Dougal

    The reality of party hype is that it’s a case of caveat emptor. It’s still hype.

    Agreed. hype is hype is hype.

    But do you deny there is such a thing as honest party promotion?

  • sean1

    Got to admit- laughed my jacobs off at this thread. And well done Moderator for ignoring Padraig’s calls for censorship.

  • Dougal

    the SDLP is guilty of hype since it misled people by advising them to bet on Haughey.

    The SDLP has never advised anyone to “bet” – you are either lying or stupid which is it?

    You DO admit to placing a bet because you read something on the Internet! ha ha

  • Dougal

    Such comic wit from the treasonous Shinners it is truly scary! So you laughed them off? What does that leave you with, just the one one your head?

    Thanks for reminding me sean1,



  • Rubicon

    Not just any website Dougal – the SDLP blogspot at

    I liked the odds on Sharon and always place a few quid on various outcomes. I do as well as I do at the ballot box – having failed to vote for a successful candidate in almost a decade.

    Up till now you have been associating hype with misleading. The evidence is there – the SDLP did mislead by advising punters to bet on Haughey. You asked for evidence – you’ve got it.

    I don’t see the SDLP offering to take responsibility for their advice. All I’ve heard is you calling me a fool for listening to the SDLP or believing the stuff the put out on the web.

    You’ve been Mr. Angry on this thread for 2 days. Keep going at this and Mark Durkan will be asking you to shut up before doing his party more damage.

  • SuperSoupy


    You really should read the links before making an even bigger fool of yourself.

    On the SDLP ElectionBlog:

    Campaign HQ wrote: (not a journalist the official SDLP blogger)

    Betting types would be well advised to put a couple of quid on Sharon to take back our second seat in Newry & Armagh.

    Now carry on. You’re providing the laugh of the election

  • Dougal


    No where does it suggest placing a bet. This is just another spurious link that proves nothng.


    It doesn’t say that on the page. have you resulted to making things up now?

    Sad AND desperate. But hey, you’re a Shinner right?

  • SuperSoupy

    BTW Dougal thanks for keeping this thread alive, without you I would never have been inspired to ask:

    Who wrote the SDLP blog?

    Was it an SDLP Press Officer?

    Like Ms Haughey?

    Did she advise people to bet on herself and cost people money?

    In addition to being wrong.

  • Rubicon

    Dougal – you really are taking the Mick! (pun intended!)

    The page says exactly what SS wrote. Now the SDLP blogspot is “a spurious website”!! Do you realise how many here wholeheartedly agree with you on that? 😉

  • Delboy

    This thread has been funny at times but it looks like turning into a fight of attrition.

    Dougal et al scores 8/10: Sound argument and well delivered.

    “The Dirty Shinners” 5/10: Funny but repetative.

  • Rubicon

    Dellboy – not sure you’ve seen all the evidence – and you must by now know how keen Dougal is on evidence. About this time yesterday Dougal et al were VERY repetitive and had posts removed. Isn’t that right Dougal?

  • SuperSoupy


    It wasn’t Dougal doing the spam attack that was one of his seven friends using the same internet connection impersonating him.

    Do try and keep up.

    And Delboy, how is anyone expected to counter Dougal and his team?

  • Dougal

    Thanks Del! (do I know you you?)

    Here come tweedle dum and twedle dee again, so frequently posting together….

    I am happy to concede that I was wrong about he SDLP blogspot page… But really, so what? This IS spurious link as it dos nothing to prove the party willfully mislead anyone. More the fool you if you take your betting tips from a political party.

    This has to be one of the most desperate and tenuous of justifications ever. Lets recap. Hours after the thread began; we have one link to a blogspot page. That’s it! From this we are to assume that the party in question is totally devoid of any integrity, because they “encouraged” people to bet! This is great stuff guys! Keep it coming. All because the SDLP suggested that “betting types” might want to place a bet! Priceless. Almost as funny as when Mitchel encouraged post office works to risk a criminal record by not delivering the post!

  • Rubicon

    SS – I did say “Dougal et al”. It’s difficult remember the names and trying to keep up is made all the more difficult when different Dougals post using the same name.

    Perhaps I’m just getting too old for this – but will try harder 😉

  • Rubicon

    Dougal – you’re in danger of moving the discussion from ‘hype’ to ‘spin’.

    The site did not say “betting types” might want to place a bet. What SDLP Campaign HQ said was, “Betting types would be well advised to put a couple of quid on Sharon” as I’m sure you well know. You are now in spin territory.

    Now – was SDLP Campaign HQ’s advice misleading? I’ll take responsibility for my own bets – but many hearing or reading that advice from SDLP Campaign HQ might have thought it reflected events on the ground, what party polesters were reporting etc.

    A “yes” or “no” answer will suffice. The proof you asked for has been given you. Simply saying the statements from SDLP Campaign HQ are spurious is not exactly helping your point.

    What was your point again? That ‘hype’ meant ‘misleading’?

    Do carry on …

  • Dougal

    FFS, what is Rubicon, (or SS, sean1, roisin et al)wittering on about?

    Because Shinner shite has taken this thread cynical thread so far off topic, we should just remin ourselves that Chris Donnelly began this personal attack on Sharon Haughey by singling her out in the totle of the thread. “Claiming” that she weas “hyped-up” as opposed to merely promoted by her party, he did this despite the fact that she polled nearly 10% of the vote in N&A. Mick was happy to stamp this personal attack on Miss Haughey, allowing the thread to continue.

    I suppose it’s a true enough reflection of the politics in NI, only the voice of the Shinners nd Duppers really matters… It’s no wonder we’re in the shit state we’re in!

  • Henry94


    When the issue is the SDLP hyping a candidate then evidence of them doing so on their blog is pretty conclusive.

    It’s hardly credible to suggest they only did so on their blog. Clearly journalists had the impression that Haughey was looking good. Now journalists rely on parties for that kind of information and they assume it’s based on some kind of reality.

    In fact that is what led people astray, the assumption that parties know the story on the ground. The SDLP did not know. But they pretended to.

    Why? To create an impression that she was a contender in the hope that the impression might become the reality.

    In the good old days in the music business people used to hype records. Buy their own single a few hundred times to get it into the charts in the hope that people would hear it and like it.

    The SDLP have form in West Tyrone for hyping candidates and the evidence is overwhelming that the “single transferable strategy” was cranked up again in this case.

    But again it proved to be top of the flops.

  • blogrus

    The pathetic criticism of Sharon Haughey only shows the sad depths of the Shinner supporters will go to in their sick propoganda war against proper political parties. They try to make out they are the voice of nationalism when in fact they are the voice of unconstitutional republicanism based on a fascist agenda of bigotry and sectarianism. They should wake up and realise that extreme republicanism is driving a very dangerous agenda and using them as pawns. For example, they use the romanticism of the “struggle” yet ignore the fact that SF did not participate in the 1916 rising – perhaps this is an assuaging of their guilt………

  • SuperSoupy


    Unlike you I do not share an IP address with anyone real or fictional as the mods will know.

    I’m surprised they are letting you contribute under multiple IDs, you’re up to 8 now.

    No one believes the shared connection crap.

  • Dougal

    Who or where is “SDLP Campaign HQ” and where did they “Betting types would be well advised to put a couple of quid on Sharon” Is that the same blog site or was it the main sdlp website?

    “I’ll take responsibility for my own bets” Wow, that’s big of you, especially after all the whining you did!

    You are wrong to say the proof has been given. A few spurious links don’t “prove” a thing? You have been unable to provide anything that even hints at the SDLP, Miss Haughey or anyone else for that matter willfully misleaded the voters. It is clear to all who read these posts that the dirty Shinners are more concerned with SDLP bashing than defending a person’s good name. You might wish to ignore the fact that at no point did I claim to be defending the SDLP. I know how much the Shinners like SDLP bashing, but really, that’s not my concern. I’ll leave that for others.

    As this thread has shown, the Shinners continue to divide the Nationalist community, alienating those Irish Republicans who refuse to condone the treasonous actions of the Provos. Their bitter, belligerent ranting towards the SDLP is hypocritical in the extreme, especially when we consider their own treasonous support for the murder of their fellow countrymen. When they choose to ignore this, why should we expect them to see why a person’s good name is worth defending?


  • SuperSoupy


    On the main SDLP website:

    They have a link on the left to the ‘SDLP Campaign Blog’:

    On that blog ‘Campaign HQ’ advises people to bet on Haughey.

    That is hype.

  • Dougal

    Nobodys “good name” was attacked and nothing libelious has been posted. Wind your neck in, Mick has already given his ruling!

  • Dougal


    You’re like a cracked record, give it up! You sound way too desperate, likeyou are trying to convice yourself.


    Read the posts… the title wrongly claims that Haughey was the “Most Over-Hyped Election Candidate”. It is my contention that she was promoted not “hyped”.

  • I don’t know where you are from Dougal but I’m from the constituency.

    To say that she hyped is putting it mildly, according to some of the stoop members there she was going to be elected as sure as the sun was going to set.

    This was not born to fruition and in her alloted area Cathal outpolled her 2-1. Indeed in her own home area of Granemore she was outpolled in some boxes by 3-1.

    There is nobody saying anything personal about her but she was overhyped. The Stoops believed their own spin, that is a dangerous thing for any political party.

  • To say that she hyped

    Sorry, should have read

    “To say she was hyped”

  • The Wanderer

    Hype is SF parachuting people in to a constituency! Then trying to convince people that are are no suitable local people who can best represent them.

  • Dougal

    Hyped-up or promoted Chris?

  • SuperSoupy

    Did you mean the SDLP? Brid Rodgers mentioned above? Or Marietta Farrell?

    It’s only hype when it comes to nothing – like the return on a bet for Haughey to be MLA.

  • Hyped-up or promoted Chris?

    Overhyped and with no basis for such.

  • Roisin

    Dougal and the rest of his pals on the magic roundabout,

    Is it not past your bedtime now? School tomorrow remember.

  • picador

    Before the SDLP contributor’s on this site give themselves an aneurism in thier attempts to ignore the voice of the elctorate here is the information which they really should be paying attention to:

    SDLP received 105,000 votes – next time they could well be down to five figures

    SDLP received a quota in:
    North Belfast
    South Antrim
    Upper Bann
    Fermanagh & South Tyrone
    East Derry

    Suggestion: WAKE UP, SMELL THE COFFEE, stop whinging about ‘Shinners’ and put your own house in order. The electorate don’t like your message.

    Note to PatMcC etc. After McGuiness & Convery’s unimpressive performance in North Belfast, surely it’s time for Gerry Kelly to take a serious tilt at Dodd’s Westminister seat.

  • picador

    Sorry, that should have read ‘SDLP on less than a quota in the following constituencies’

    As for the other typos, I put them down to mezcal.

  • Roisin

    [i]Hi D’
    It’s me!

    Poddy gone home then? I see roisins still gunning for you!

    I’m still with you on this one. Can I join the SH fan club?[/i]

    Hi Colette,

    Are you Dougal’s right hand girlfriend or the left?

  • Observer

    This has been a truly enjoyable thread.
    Not quite as enjoyable as the election results, but you can’t have everything.
    Dougal, Zebidee and all the rest, thank you so much. I had no idea you would resurface after they dumped you from the telly. You gave me as much fun as you used to when I was 5 years old.
    You haven’t lost it!

  • Rubicon

    Who or where is “SDLP Campaign HQ” and where did they “Betting types would be well advised to put a couple of quid on Sharon” Is that the same blog site or was it the main sdlp website? (Posted by Dougal on Mar 11, 2007 @ 10:57 PM)

    Jesus, Mary & Joseph! The link has been posted at least 3 times for you. Just click and read – or ask one of your cyber mates how to surf. When (if) you ever get there – go to the bottom of the page where you’ll find the SDLP copyright notice.

    “I’ll take responsibility for my own bets” Wow, that’s big of you, especially after all the whining you did! (Posted by Dougal on Mar 11, 2007 @ 10:57 PM)


    It was you Dougal that raised the issue of integrity. The point I was making was that it didn’t stretch to honouring misleading advice. Call it promotion if you will – the rest of us “sad”, “dirty”, “arrogant”, “foolish”, “stupid”, “sychos” (sic) “treasonous”, “sycophants” will call it for what it is. While I’m too thick skinned to take much heed of you bad-mannered and inaccurate debate – I’m not (nor ever was) a SDLP or SF supporter. Many current SF voters used to be SDLP supporters. I imagine you’ve done a great job of persuading them back so that they might vote for Sharon next time.

    Once you find the SDLP site you might demonstrate you can do humble pie as well as giving insult.

  • dougal’s guardian angel

    Don’t waste your time. You’re arguing with Roisin and Mark McG (Eoin) of Debate Central. People who have a lot time to waste time ridiculing people on the Internet. It realy serves no purpose arguing with them. They do this every day, day in and day out for sport.

  • SuperSoupy

    Can we expect another 10 Guardian Angels along soon?

    Whatabout a Guardian angel for Padraig, Collette, Delboy…….

  • Rubicon

    That’s just whataboutery SS!

  • Observer

    Don’t listen to the Guardian Angel!

  • picador

    I don’t think any guardian angels are needed to protect anyone from anyone else on this thread.

    The person concerned does not need the help of others to ridicule himself. I suspect he is actually a member of SF seeking to discredit the SDLP.


    It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.
    No, sorry, it is funny!

  • SuperSoupy

    You think he’s a member of SF?

    I think he is one, maybe all of these people:

    Sore loser and doing a good impression of a mentalist regardless.

  • SuperSoupy

    I’ll now add my most pathetic story of the election…

    I met young Matthew McDermott (the SDLP’s youngest Cllr and Lewsley’s replacement) at a polling station.

    I asked how he he had found his first two months on Lisburn Council.

    He replied:

    “A bit boring”

  • Roisin

    Looks like Dougal and his friends from the tragic roundabout have gone to bed. Guess we’ll have to wait for the next non-school night for the next exciting episode.

    Poor Sharon Haughey, used and abused by the SDLP.

    *shakes head in despair at how low the stoops will go*

  • SuperSoupy

    That wireless hub is something else, along with synchronising all ten people’s syntax it synchronises their bedtime.

    I look forward to the ten of them contributing tomorrow, just as soon as Dougal wakes up.

  • SuperSoupy


    *shakes head in despair at how low the stoops will go*

    It’s only Dougal and his ten friends.

  • Observer

    Certainly doing a good job of discrediting the SDLP.
    Well, I suppose Dukan did most of the spade work.

  • Observer

    All sounds a bit ad hominem to me, Guardian Angel.
    I thought your protectee was complaining about discrediting someone.
    Haven’t you just gone way beyond anything that could possibly be regarded as acceptable?
    Lost the plot and the argument in one fell swoop.

  • Briso

    Posted by Pat Mc Larnon on Mar 10, 2007 @ 09:29 AM
    >Personally I would not nominate a candidate but
    >a constituency organisation. So step forward
    >Briege’s temporary bailiwick of West Tyrone. The
    >SDLP indiscipline in that area is an example of
    >how not to fight a campaign. Egos abounded as
    >they not only flushed a seat down the drain but
    >more importantly cost their party a ministry.

    I agree, although I would give an honourable mention to the SF shambles in Foyle which yet again managed to ‘buck the trend’, despite considerable disunity in SDLP ranks. It was truly a pathetic performance when measured against the SF performance overall. No wonder Mitchell ducked out.

  • Rubicon

    Without doubt SDLP transfers going to Deeny (Ind.)cost Deehan (SDLP) the seat. It’s difficult to know how Seamus Shields (SDLP) transfers went since he was eliminated with 1,106 votes at the same time as McCartney (UKUP) who had 222 votes and Joe O’Neill who had 462. These 3 gave Deeney 385 votes and SDLP candidates 880. Eugene McMenamin’s 2,701 passed 1,606 to his colleague Deehan and 573 to Deeny. This transfer lost Deehan the seat.

    The SDLP have some hard thinking to do here – particularly when Deehan herself is a medical doctor. Why the antagonism between McMenamin and Deehan?

    Had Deehan won the seat I don’t think hte SDLP would have got another ministery. Hardly an excuse though.

  • Rubicon

    Thanks to the mod for removing Guardian Angel’s and Harpo’s posts. I felt as if I’d invaded a private and personal conversation between 2 people just by reading the posts.

    I’d thank Guardian Angel and Harpo to keep their voyeur tendencies to themselves. I’m not interested in ear-wigging what was clearly a private conversation. How Guardian Angel can support such activity while backing Dougal’s argument is hypocritical in the extreme.

  • Niki

    Is it only Sin Fein voters on this blog? Everyone says tha Ireland is a nice place to visit but you all make it sound terrible. You all come across quite nasty and bitter. I thought the Sinn Feinn and the SDLP both want a united Ireland?

  • Dougal

    Thanks to my guardian angel for the advice!

    I won’t be posting on this thread again after this, (it was clear that the treasonous Shinner sycophants were at play but I had a bit of time to kill!)

  • Dougal’s Guardian Angel

    [ball please – Moderator]

  • Rubicon

    Guardian Angel – don’t you think you sold your integrity a little cheap?

    I don’t know who this McGregor you delight in getting a red card is. If he got a red card I’m sure it was for what he posted – not for your adroit argument.

    9 out of 10 of the posts removed from this thread were from your angelic selves. Yes, you were taken the mick out of – but I thought it was in good humour that your ignorant posts invited.

    Readers of this thread should know that a personal conversation between 2 people was posted here and applauded by Guardian Angel. Guardian Angel was thanked by Dougal before this disgusting invasion of privacy was removed by the mods.

    Meanwhile – Dougal et al want to argue that they’re non-partisan and just concerned about an individual’s good name. It’s a pity that the mods needed to remove the posts since all who read it would wrench in disgust.

    I post this because it will be impossible for those reading the thread to know what happened. Instead of dealing with the points raised (that posters can read) the Dougal et al network published a private conversation between 2 adults who they believed responsible for criticising them.

    IF the hacking to that conversation was correct (in the linkage to Dougal’s critics) then the 2 individuals – who engaged with Dougal – will now feel it impossible to reply.

    The “Dougal wireless” has given a low to debate on Slugger.

    So – after the removal of these posts Dougal decides to exit. Enough said?

    Not quite – the “Dougal wireless” has given a new low to debate on Slugger. In future I’ll be watching every Dougal and his magic roundabout. The courtesy he/they was/were treated with in this thread won’t be repeated by me.

  • DGA

    Ruby McG…too funny…thanks for the fun and laughs.

  • Roisin


    Thanks for the kind words of support. Hopefully Mick will do the right thing and show Harpo the door, as I suspect it’s the Moose Juicer (as he’s affectionately known on Deb Cen) who was behind both reprehensible acts.

    Is mise

  • SuperSoupy

    Andrew (DGA),

    Mick doesn’t appreciate this kind of stuff on his website so I won’t put your full name here.

    Good nite – Tex.

  • Rubicon

    Roisin – I really don’t know what to say. I’m sorry I got up in the morning and hit the keyboard that brought back Slugger. In reading what was there I felt a voyeur.

    I doubt you and I share similar political outlooks – but we share a sense of human dignity.

    This is no way to win an argument.

    Codladh sámh duit


  • My Da (76 next month)

    Three very unhappy SDLP candidates were in a pub in West Tyrone just after the Assembly election result. They were mystified why none of them were elected. They had enough first preference votes between them to ensure at least one of them be elected yet all of them were eliminated.

    They carefully examined the transfer votes in every count but could not discover where their missing votes went. “Maybe somebody stole them” said one of the three, “I wouldn’t put it past the Shinners to do that”. “Talk sense woman” said another, “they got their first two candidates in on the first count and not only did they get their remaining candidate in but had over 700 surplus votes to transfer elsewhere!”. “In any case” he added in a hushed tone looking around him “it is the wrong place to accuse the Shinners of that! but Remind me to drop a letter to the editor of the Irish News letters column to say just that.”

    “Well who else could benefit with our votes? The DUP count only rose when the UUP went out, that left the only independant candidate and he got the Shinners surplus to keep him in!”

    “I have solved the mystery” said the third beaten docket. “The name of the independant is DEENY and your name is DEEHAN”. “It was the stupid SDLP voters who cast their transfer votes to the wrong candidate!”